The Relationship Between Patients' Personality Traits, the Alliance, and Change in Interpersonal Distress in Intensive Group Treatment for Personality Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined patients' personality traits as operationalized by the five-factor model in relation to early alliance and reduction of interpersonal distress through an intensive group treatment program for personality dysfunction. A sample of 79 consecutively admitted psychiatric outpatients with personality dysfunction who attended an 18-week intensive group treatment program completed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory at pretreatment, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems at pre- and posttreatment, and the Edmonton Therapeutic Alliance Scale, a measure of the therapeutic alliance with the program therapist, at Session 5. Results indicated that patients who were relatively extraverted tended to rate the alliance with their program therapist higher and subsequently reported more improvement of interpersonal distress. The presence of a personality disorder did not moderate this mediation. Patients' extraversion likely promotes a bonding with the therapist and facilitates the interpersonal group work necessary for improvement. Assessing patients' level of extraversion before starting intensive group treatment might indicate which intervention strategies could be useful with that patient within the program frame.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".